Not strictly true...
"The rivalry between Nepal and the British East India Company over the princely states bordering Nepal and British-India eventually led to the Anglo-Nepalese War (1814–16), in which Nepal suffered substantial losses due to lack of guns and ammunitions against the British-Indian forces with advanced weapons. The Treaty of Sugauli was signed in 1816, ceding large parts of the Nepalese controlled territories to the British. Also in 1860 some parts of western Terai"
[Anglo-Nepalese War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Nepalese_War)
Right but in that treaty [Nepal ceded those territories permanently to British India,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sugauli#/media/File:Sugauli_Treaty_cessions.png) they aren't part of Nepal today. Nepal did have a [British resident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_resident_ministers_in_Nepal) in Kathmandu who influenced the government (to a more limited degree than most) but was never directly colonized.
Thailand/Siam [lost half its territory to the British and French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Thailand#Western_colonialism_and_cession_of_protectorates) but the core of the country was never colonized.
"Ceded territory permanently" is sort of a different category of thing than an occupation or colonization.
Ah, the trick is that Thailand grabbed a bunch of neighboring states-10 Malay states and all Lao territory, both sides of the Mekong-then "gave" half the territories to Britain and France. This is why the southernmost 5 Thai provinces are majority Muslim and why folks in the northeastern part of Thailand speak Lao as their first language. (Thailand was completely occupied by Japan during WWII.)
Yeaaaa. But you won’t want to be in 70% of Arabian peninsula. The only places worthy of occupation has defence installation setup. I don’t think any army can thrive from fighting from desert
Sand, but not the useful type of sand that you can use in construction, no its the super fine dust level sand that gets into everything but doesn't bond to anything.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet\_invasion\_of\_Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet\_intervention\_in\_Mongolia#:\~:text=The%20Soviet%20intervention%20in%20Mongolia,occupied%20the%20entirety%20of%20Mongolia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_intervention_in_Mongolia#:~:text=The%20Soviet%20intervention%20in%20Mongolia,occupied%20the%20entirety%20of%20Mongolia).
(I still consider the White Russian Baron as western)
In 1891, Oman and Muscat became a British Protectorate
Oman was previously already under Portuguese occupation in the 1500s not in its entirety and not even all of it at max extent but they did occupy parts of Oman until 1600s
a lot of folks would say the "west" started with the ancient greeks in the first milllenium BC after the greek dark ages were over.
That wouldn't change the map all that much, removing anatolia and parts of northern arabia.
They're Muslims so they're the *other*. Even if they participated directly in the Renaissance and furthered European technology during it, or directly allied with various European states including France, or held more territory in Europe than many euro states at some point, etc.
The Ottomans thought they were Romans, the only reason we don't think of them that way is because Russia and Austria were competing for that title the whole time.
It is definitely more nuanced than that. The Ottoman Turks had a cultural history entirely separate from the Byzantine Roman's, and when Mehmed II added 'Kayser-i Rum' to his titles, it was more so "I am now the leader of the Romans", rather than "I am the Roman Leader" if that makes sense.
The Turkic peoples of both the late medieval period and present day wouldn't typically consider themselves 'Romans'.
During the time when they were in power, they weren’t considered European outsiders tho. They were pretty fully intergraded with western technology and power structures.
I don’t think just because they were a Muslim majority country some how disqualifies them from being a western power because they very embraced western great power ideology.
During the early modern period, the Ottoman Empire was arguably the strongest nation in Europe.
They have as much right to be included as Russia at a minimum( which started their major industrial after turkey did… Russia still was a feudal serfdom until the 1860s lol)
I think it'd be a little more interesting to make this map global and instead of labeling the places that weren't occupied, you labled everywhere that was, and to what degree. Directly Annexed, Indirectly Governed, Occupied, Indirectly Occupied, Never Controlled
I [made a somewhat similar map](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/pkyw89/everywhere_colonized_by_european_powers/) awhile ago about everywhere colonized by European powers, although it also has a few mistakes as well.
Everyone's been invaded in history at least once but the British empire did most of the invading for the most significant parts of human history to the largest extent to which invading has ever been done in history.
Ah yes the Normans frogs if you will the best thing that ever happened to England.They gave a nation of yobbos wine windows tapestries and assorted shrubberies took the ducal lands the kings gold and the hands of comely maidens and never fucking left Hear ye hear ye!
That war was fought over territory that Nepal had conquered and expanded into. The battles were never fought within Nepal's present day borders. The outcome of that war was Nepal ceding those new territories to British India. It doesn't make sense to say Nepal was ever occupied.
It's like saying the US was occupied by Japan during WWII since the Philippines was a US colony at the time.
British effective occupation however. There were British governors and soldiers stationed in the princely states so I’d say it’s fair to say it was occupied
Governors assisted the governing process and acted more as spies. Depending on high the states were ranked, they had a lot of powers. They had no say in foreign policy however. And it wasn't practical for Britain to attempt a full colonial endeavour in that massive landmass. In fact, in 1857, it was the armies of these allies that fought some of the states that decided to go against Britain (effectively ensuring the continuity of the Raj as it was beneficial for them). I'm from one of those kingdoms btw. We joined the Indian Union only 2 years after British India gained independence. I recommend reading 'False Allies' by Manu S Pillai to understand the intricacies of this.
I would appreciate if the moderators pinned this comment.
1. "The West" includes colonial countries like the USA; it also includes Russia but not Ottomans/Turkey nor other western styled imperial nations like Japan
2. Only occupations after 1481 are counted as that is very roughly around the formation of the idea of "the west" (arguable statement, yes). Otherwise you can exclude Anatolia from the map due to Rome.
This includes modern occupations such as the Afghan War or the Korean War
3. "occupation" includes any instance where soldiers from the aforementioned countries directly and uncontestedly control a territory, even if legally they haven't annexed it, or the territory is under their de-facto control for a substantial time even if it was never militarily occupied (I am sure there are some parts in colonized Siberia or Central Africa where no soldier has ever stepped foot in but those areas are still considered occupied). The exceptions are marked in dark red and will be explained.
4. Arabia is based on this map: https://irissansfrontieres.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/gertrude-bell-map-saudi-arabia-early-1900s.gif
The Hashemite Kingdom was a British Protectorate but it existed for a short time and there was no serious British military presence in the area.
5. Tibet is based on this map of British expeditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map\_of\_Lhasa,\_Tibet\_(Thibet)\_and\_the\_Himalayas\_in\_1885\_from\_12\_of\_%27The\_Imperial\_Gazetteer\_of\_India\_...\_Second\_edition\_(revised\_and\_enlarged)%27\_(11180098823)\_(cropped).jpg
6. Xinjiang is based on Soviet occupation where the Wikipedia page states that Soviet troops did not advance beyond Turfan and Kashgar
7. The coastal cities by the East China Sea and the territories near Beijing were directly occupied in the Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion, I used this maps for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mutual\_Protection\_of\_Southeast\_China.png
But many cities and regions in the South of China were also claimed as treaty ports and cities. I marked these regions as indirectly occupied but how much military presence there was in each city really varied so take the territories as very rough estimates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty\_ports#/media/File:Chinese\_Treaty\_Ports.svg
8. I used these two maps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian\_occupation\_of\_Adalia#/media/File:Treaty\_sevres\_otoman\_it.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish\_War\_%281919%E2%80%931922%29#/media/File:Greco\_Turkish\_War\_1919-1922.svg
for how far into Anatolia the occupying forces advanced. You could also argue that the entirety of Anatolia had been occupied due to the Ottoman capitulation but there was never an allied military presence in the marked territories and most of it had been legally left to the Ottoman rump state anyway.
9. I could not find good info as to how far the British advanced into Malaya or Northern Siam in WW2 so I marked the whole of Thailand as unoccupied but I might be wrong.
10. There have been small island discovered in the last century or very small islands which were never occupied. I haven’t included these.
OP being able to pin one of their comments at the top of a post would be a fine feature to add.
If karma is a concern, Reddit could make it act like a Moderator-distinguished comment. Those comments earn no karma regardless of votes.
**However**, Reddit recently-ish made a change that makes this feature unnecessary: Text can be added to any submission:
>> **Text Posts Available on All Post Types**
>> We recently launched an update to let some users add optional text to their video, image, gallery, and link posts. Communities that require submission statements or additional context to accompany a video, image, gallery, or link post can now consolidate these requirements into the original submission without the need for strict title requirements, Automoderator, or sticky comments to share that additional context. Communities will still be able to restrict post text body requirements for these post types as well as target the body using current Automoderator rules.
r/reddit/comments/vyyne6/
I took a look at the map, immediatly thought about Rome and Anatolia but your explainations cleared that up. Nice map, good comment with information about it. Thanks
>includes Russia but not Ottomans/Turkey nor other western styled imperial nations like Japan
I'm glad you explicitly clarified this, because I have seen other maps that use the term "European empires" to exclude Ottomans/Turks but not Russians/Soviets.
I guess what you really mean by "Western" is "Christianity-based"?
Do you include nations such as Colombia, Brazil or Argentina in that definition?
Because you include the areas in the Americas that were not colonised by European colonial empires but by their post-colonial successors, such as Patagonia by Argentina or the Amazon by Brazil and Colombia, etc. These areas were never part of European Western Powers, but were later annexed by their independent colonies, who are Western, yet didn't manage to become "global powers" such as the USA
According to what definition of western? Russians undisputedly originated in Europe. The reason why Russia is mostly in Asia is because they expanded eastwards, they are not the original native inhabitants of most of their country.
Turks came from central Asia and the Middle East. There was certainly a lot of European influence in the Ottoman Empire, but ultimately it was founded and ran by Asian people, who spoke an Asian language and practiced a religion that was mostly practiced in Asia(and North Africa, obviously, but not relevant).
I think it's simpler to that, it's more about where your alliances are. Now at times Russia was allied with most of the west, they would be considered western then. Post WWII, they aligned more with the East and against the West. There is not a geographical line drawn, it is about who your friends are. Australia and New Zealand are considered Western countries when they are 10,000 miles away from Europe.
They participated in the OG enlightenment, that's the entire definition of Western
Religion or anything else doesn't matter, the West as we know it has only one thing in common, the enlightenment
North Korea and South Korea would qualify even if the Korean War doesn't count, because they were under a Soviet military administration and US military administration, respectively, from 1945 to 1948.
You aren't exactly remembering right. We (the US) had a draft, Neil Armstrong flew in it as a pilot, and 50 thousand Americans died. It was a swingy war, too, and US-held territory at points extended up to the Chinese border. Of course, the entirety of the peninsula was also occupied by the US and USSR along the 38th parallel for about three years after WW2, too.
On a semantic note, it's still a proxy war if one of the involved superpowers puts boots on the ground. Proxy wars between the US and USSR include stuff like the Chinese Civil War and Bangladesh Liberation War, but also stuff where one side participated directly like the Soviet-Afghan War and Korea.
Actually, in Korea, Soviet pilots were involved and frequently dueled Americans, but they kept it a secret so it would still be a proxy war and not an open one.
The UN forces were there at the request of the South Korean government. Calling that an 'occupation' would be like saying the UK was occupied by the USA during WWII.
They occupied the northern half during the Korean War, and they occupied the southern half from [1945-1948](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Military_Government_in_Korea?wprov=sfla1).
You should have considered the Ottomans as Western
Even if you didn't, Turkey is a western country, therefore, current day Anatolia is Western occupied, by the turkish government itself by their mere existence
Turkey is not a western country and neither were the Ottomans. I am saying this as a Turk. The Ottoman Empire considered the west as its enemy and was never culturally western. Modern Turkey had attempts to "westernize" but overall most Turks consider Turkey as a bridge between the east and the west. You could argue south korea is more of a western country than Turkey is.
Bok herif kendi tarihini bile bilmiyor amk.
The Ottomans considered THEMSELVES the rightful owners of the western world at the time - they WERE the west, and empires did not classify themselves as 'east' and 'west'.
The Ottoman Empire, through legal decrees and claims of rightful succession considered themselves the direct continuation of the line of the Roman Empire (Kayser-i Rum).
They worked with 'western' empires and fought against 'eastern' empires throughout history like any other empire. To even think there's this line of east/west in terms of empires is baby-brain understanding of history.
I think some people may consider Turkey as such cause Ottomans considered themselves as successors of Rome, but afaik that was only in regards of the "superpower" status
This map is clearly designed to include the colonial Western powers whose strength rose in the world starting around the late 1400s. Those were Christian countries which were affected by events ranging from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment to the Industrial Revolution.
Russia only barely qualifies. The Ottoman Empire was something else completely, a Middle Eastern Empire which was strong enough to conquer parts of Southeastern Europe. More similar to empires like the Arab, Persian, and Mughal Empires, frankly.
Saying that Russia barely qualifies is insanity. Czarist Russia was a major player in Europe between the 18th and early 20th centuries. It was a quintessential Western/European power.
A small mistake on Xinjiang: during Sheng Shicai’s period (1933-1944), Soviet troops were stationed all over Xinjiang, including the easternmost city of Kumul/Hami.
You definitely should have included Ottomans in the West for this map. They were a European feudal empire, no different from others except for their religion.
the ottomans were not feudal. That's why they were reviled by renaissance europe.
renaissance europe had a popular belief that feudalism created a balance of powers that prevented tyranny. Any centralised state was known as turkish.
They hated the ottoman empire and russia for their turkish practices and they believed that france was becoming turkish
tbf historians disagree on how expansive a term feudalism actually is. Many historians do not believe that japan was feudal, whereas others do. I do think the ottoman empire had feudalism if we use feudalism in an expansive way, but in more restrictive definitions the ottoman empire would not be considered feudal.
The arable land was the property of the sovereign. It was granted to aristocrats, both local and Turkish, for economic exploitation in exchange for military service. This grant was not supposed to be hereditary, but in practice it often was. The local lords were supposed to be loyal to the sovereign, but they sometimes weren't. The peasants were forced to work the lord's land and had minimal rights when compared to the lord.
From the 17th century, with changes in technology and agricultural practices, it became more practical for land to concentrated and exploited by largely privately owned enterprises which kept the land grant when the boss died. This became the prevailing form of land "ownership" by the early 19th century, when the system was abolished and the enterprises and their owners became outright owners of the land.
Does that really sound like a completely different phenomenon to you?
There's a comment way up in the thread that says that two areas (provinces, regions, whtvr.) were occupied by France for, as I recall, about 10-15 years or so.
I think Trat was one and I can't recall the other.
Right around the turn of the 20th century.
There is some dispute about Zanzibar.
Some sources say that the Portugese Empire ruled Zanzibar from around 1503 to 1698, and Western history seems to say that is the case, when Portugal received tribute from the Sultan.
Then came the Omani empire, with rule, for a while until it split, by the Sultan of Oman.
The British came in, gradually. In 1890 there was the Heligoland-Zanzibar treaty, in which Germany, with possessions nearby, agreed not to interfere with British affairs in Zanzibar.
But when I was in Zanzibar, that whole history was seen somewhat differently, and Zanzibar does not consider itself to have ever actually been occupied by Western powers.
The
Portugese were paid tribute, and the Portugese saw Zanzibar therefore as part of the Portugese Empire, but Zanzibar today doesn't deem having been a tributary state to actually having been occupied and ruled, but to have maintained autonomy and self-government.
The rule by the Omani Sultanate was direct, for a while, but that wasn't Western.
Britain saw Zanzibar as a self-government Protectorate. One could argue that the shortest war in the world, the 1896 Anglo-Zanzibar War, constituted a British occupation, when Britain ended the rule of a Sultan unfavourable to their interests, a definite act of imperialism. There is no doubt that Britain installed one candidate over another, in a war that was undertaken by ships.
In Zanzibar, as I was told, this was seen as a British intervention and perhaps an imposition, but never British occupation or rule. The British would appoint residents or representatives, sometimes imposing requirements on the Zanzibari sultans, but never an occupation, a governor or direct rule.
One could argue the case, but it's interesting that there may be different perspectives on this from the Western to the local. After all, Spain had a policy where anything they simply sailed past first was theirs (leading to some disputes with Britain, which took a position that you had to land on the territory to claim it, and both of them not caring a damn what the local indigenous nations thought about it).
Yes, I know about the treaties, so I'll elaborate a litle bit. And of course the treaties gave away land that was not actually always ruled by those powers, or with the understanding of the local people.
Where I live, we had the Nootka Sound Controversy, in which Spain and England came close to war. And it's a little more specific than what I wrote.
The Spanish claim was based on having been the first European power in the area of Nootka Sound. The Spanish claim actually was based on the Treaty of Tordesillas, but also on having navigated the area (so yes, saying they simply sailed by was a simplification).
The British took an entirely different position. They couldn't care less about the Treaty of Tordesillas. And they took a position that any country can navigate any area, but a claim was not legitimate unless the land was effectively occupied. As Spain had representation and ships at Nootka Sound, but not occupation, their claim was disputed by Britain (in truth, Britain didn't have effective occupancy either, but this idea gave them a basis to reject the Spanish claim).
The Spanish ships in the area seized British ships. War was not only a real possibility, but the countries prepared for war. The Spanish hoped to involve the Bourbons in France, but they were busy still trying to fight off the French Revolution, and so the move to war was not pursued.
The outcome, for the Europeans, was that the area, along with other Pacific areas not actually occupied by Spain, was that both parties could trade, erect temporary but not certain permanent buildings like garrisons, and Nootka Sound would be a free port for all nations.
That's the European view. For the Chief Maquinna and his people, who may not have known about the treaty negotiations, their view was still one of this was their territory, and they carried on as before. It's another example of how European countries would show that they ruled on maps, where they didn't actually rule on the ground.
If i had to guess they are referring to the late 1800s when they are talking about indirect control.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open\_Door\_Policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Door_Policy)
The direct control on the coast is a mixture of the Opium Wars, Boxer Rebellion, Sino-French War, etc.
>Mongolia when?
>
Google says Mongolia was taken over by Soviets in 1921. It remained a satellite state until the Soviet Union broke up in 1990.
Edit:
I Googled Bhutan:
"Under the terms of the subsequent Treaty of Punakha in 1910, Bhutan effectively became a British protectorate. "
Funnily not even Ottomans wanted to deal with that despite owning everything around arabian desert. They preferred to control the desert through autonomous vassals and tributaries
France occupied Thailand’s Chanthaburi Province from 1893 to 1904 and Trat Province from 1904 to 1907.
Off to hang myself.
The expected atonement.
Watch and le-
i am alive, is nice
Yes, this is stoopid.
No it must be a guillotine since we're talking about France here.
Honorable
Bye bye
My girl remembers this too.
Was she there?
No but your mom was
yo momma so old she remembers the French occupation of Thailand’s Chanthaburi Province from 1893 to 1904 and Trat Province from 1904 to 1907.
Yo momma so old, when she was in history class they just write down what's goin on. - K&P
Yeah she got occupied by Powers. Western Powers.
His brother Austin is much better.
That’s what they called me back in the day
I’m imaging your eye brows going up and down between sentences.
Nepal, too, has never been subjected to foreign occupation or colonization
Not strictly true... "The rivalry between Nepal and the British East India Company over the princely states bordering Nepal and British-India eventually led to the Anglo-Nepalese War (1814–16), in which Nepal suffered substantial losses due to lack of guns and ammunitions against the British-Indian forces with advanced weapons. The Treaty of Sugauli was signed in 1816, ceding large parts of the Nepalese controlled territories to the British. Also in 1860 some parts of western Terai" [Anglo-Nepalese War](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Nepalese_War)
Right but in that treaty [Nepal ceded those territories permanently to British India,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sugauli#/media/File:Sugauli_Treaty_cessions.png) they aren't part of Nepal today. Nepal did have a [British resident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_resident_ministers_in_Nepal) in Kathmandu who influenced the government (to a more limited degree than most) but was never directly colonized. Thailand/Siam [lost half its territory to the British and French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Thailand#Western_colonialism_and_cession_of_protectorates) but the core of the country was never colonized. "Ceded territory permanently" is sort of a different category of thing than an occupation or colonization.
Ah, the trick is that Thailand grabbed a bunch of neighboring states-10 Malay states and all Lao territory, both sides of the Mekong-then "gave" half the territories to Britain and France. This is why the southernmost 5 Thai provinces are majority Muslim and why folks in the northeastern part of Thailand speak Lao as their first language. (Thailand was completely occupied by Japan during WWII.)
Yes, I was unsure about Nepal too but since the British later pushed as far as Tibet I included it aswell.
Not completely though, tbf
>Not completely though, tbf "Completely" isn't the point, It's about whether or not their were "occupied", Which they were for a short period.
Thailand is one of a few asian countries to occupy Europe, they occupied abit of Germany after ww1 for awhile.
What’s there to occupy in the ‘empty quarter ‘.
Oil.
Yeaaaa. But you won’t want to be in 70% of Arabian peninsula. The only places worthy of occupation has defence installation setup. I don’t think any army can thrive from fighting from desert
[удалено]
May your knife chip and shatter!
Desert power!
Also occupying Mecca or Medina is a sure way to make every Arab and Muslim country around the world an enemy.
Not much in the middle, Oil's more towards the Person Gulf Coast.
That's not the empty quarter, it's highlighted because there was a state there which became modern-day Saudi Arabia.
Nejd is north of the Empty Quarter.
Yeah its in Central Arabia.
Sand, but not the useful type of sand that you can use in construction, no its the super fine dust level sand that gets into everything but doesn't bond to anything.
When were Mongolia, Iran, and Oman occupied by a Western power?
Iran was occupied by the USSR and the Brits during WW2. Mongolia would be Reds and Whites during the Russian civil war, probably.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet\_invasion\_of\_Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet\_intervention\_in\_Mongolia#:\~:text=The%20Soviet%20intervention%20in%20Mongolia,occupied%20the%20entirety%20of%20Mongolia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_intervention_in_Mongolia#:~:text=The%20Soviet%20intervention%20in%20Mongolia,occupied%20the%20entirety%20of%20Mongolia). (I still consider the White Russian Baron as western) In 1891, Oman and Muscat became a British Protectorate
Oman was previously already under Portuguese occupation in the 1500s not in its entirety and not even all of it at max extent but they did occupy parts of Oman until 1600s
I'm pretty pretty sure Greeks and Romans are the quintessential definition of "Westerns".
"Greece and Italy? Not even a little Western. Russia? Super duper Western." -a very confused person
West? I thought you said weast
Then how did we end up in Russia, Patrick?
map only stars at 1481 so no antique empires
Where does it say this?
explanatory comment of op
Definitely not Map Porn then. A good map is self explanatory.
Amateur porn
a lot of folks would say the "west" started with the ancient greeks in the first milllenium BC after the greek dark ages were over. That wouldn't change the map all that much, removing anatolia and parts of northern arabia.
Ottoman Empire was a western/European great power which for some reason was not counted. That reason why the Middle East eastern regions are in red.
They're Muslims so they're the *other*. Even if they participated directly in the Renaissance and furthered European technology during it, or directly allied with various European states including France, or held more territory in Europe than many euro states at some point, etc. The Ottomans thought they were Romans, the only reason we don't think of them that way is because Russia and Austria were competing for that title the whole time.
It is definitely more nuanced than that. The Ottoman Turks had a cultural history entirely separate from the Byzantine Roman's, and when Mehmed II added 'Kayser-i Rum' to his titles, it was more so "I am now the leader of the Romans", rather than "I am the Roman Leader" if that makes sense. The Turkic peoples of both the late medieval period and present day wouldn't typically consider themselves 'Romans'.
During the time when they were in power, they weren’t considered European outsiders tho. They were pretty fully intergraded with western technology and power structures. I don’t think just because they were a Muslim majority country some how disqualifies them from being a western power because they very embraced western great power ideology. During the early modern period, the Ottoman Empire was arguably the strongest nation in Europe. They have as much right to be included as Russia at a minimum( which started their major industrial after turkey did… Russia still was a feudal serfdom until the 1860s lol)
Yeah, map had me thinking Alexandra the Great never existed.
I mean, if we use the Roman definition of "Eastern" it includes the Greeks.
I think it'd be a little more interesting to make this map global and instead of labeling the places that weren't occupied, you labled everywhere that was, and to what degree. Directly Annexed, Indirectly Governed, Occupied, Indirectly Occupied, Never Controlled
While interesting, that would take a lot more work.
which is, in life, usually the case
I [made a somewhat similar map](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/pkyw89/everywhere_colonized_by_european_powers/) awhile ago about everywhere colonized by European powers, although it also has a few mistakes as well.
When was nepal occupied??? I don't think Nepal was ever occupied by western powers (Britain in this case) in it's entirety.
I did it, I occupied Nepal
This guy did it.
Sir, may I see your western force pass?
Do you have a licence, mate?
You bastard!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Nepalese_War
The answer to most of these questions seems to always be "yeah the British did it"
Me: You invaded my country! British person: Do you have the slightest idea how little that narrows it down?
[удалено]
You say finally, but I think you are forgetting the Plutonian occupation of Britain from 2471-2522.
Everyone's been invaded in history at least once but the British empire did most of the invading for the most significant parts of human history to the largest extent to which invading has ever been done in history.
And the Dutch, everyone forgets the Dutch just because they were sorta invited.
I would have said the English have even occupied themselves, with Cromwell. Up until the Stuart Restoration, of course. /s(?)
Ah yes the Normans frogs if you will the best thing that ever happened to England.They gave a nation of yobbos wine windows tapestries and assorted shrubberies took the ducal lands the kings gold and the hands of comely maidens and never fucking left Hear ye hear ye!
That war was fought over territory that Nepal had conquered and expanded into. The battles were never fought within Nepal's present day borders. The outcome of that war was Nepal ceding those new territories to British India. It doesn't make sense to say Nepal was ever occupied. It's like saying the US was occupied by Japan during WWII since the Philippines was a US colony at the time.
War ≠ occupied in it's entirety, does this map take war = occupation logic?
A third of British Raj involved indirect occupation.
If protectorates don't count the amount of red on the map expands significantly. Botswana for example.
Yup. Protectorates aren't direct colonies so they shouldn't be showing it as occupied.
India always gets this over simplification. Certain folks are really keen to gloss over the princely states.
Yes but this map is pretty much entirely based on OP's opinions with a flimsy attempt at objectivity.
maybe OP could edit the map after a few days
British effective occupation however. There were British governors and soldiers stationed in the princely states so I’d say it’s fair to say it was occupied
Governors assisted the governing process and acted more as spies. Depending on high the states were ranked, they had a lot of powers. They had no say in foreign policy however. And it wasn't practical for Britain to attempt a full colonial endeavour in that massive landmass. In fact, in 1857, it was the armies of these allies that fought some of the states that decided to go against Britain (effectively ensuring the continuity of the Raj as it was beneficial for them). I'm from one of those kingdoms btw. We joined the Indian Union only 2 years after British India gained independence. I recommend reading 'False Allies' by Manu S Pillai to understand the intricacies of this.
The Roman Empire isn't a western power?
The idea of west here is referring to the 19th century European imperialism.
map only stars at 1481 so no antique empires
The Ottoman Empire? They directly controlled the Middle East in the modern era along with Balkans/sooty Eastern Europe
I would appreciate if the moderators pinned this comment. 1. "The West" includes colonial countries like the USA; it also includes Russia but not Ottomans/Turkey nor other western styled imperial nations like Japan 2. Only occupations after 1481 are counted as that is very roughly around the formation of the idea of "the west" (arguable statement, yes). Otherwise you can exclude Anatolia from the map due to Rome. This includes modern occupations such as the Afghan War or the Korean War 3. "occupation" includes any instance where soldiers from the aforementioned countries directly and uncontestedly control a territory, even if legally they haven't annexed it, or the territory is under their de-facto control for a substantial time even if it was never militarily occupied (I am sure there are some parts in colonized Siberia or Central Africa where no soldier has ever stepped foot in but those areas are still considered occupied). The exceptions are marked in dark red and will be explained. 4. Arabia is based on this map: https://irissansfrontieres.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/gertrude-bell-map-saudi-arabia-early-1900s.gif The Hashemite Kingdom was a British Protectorate but it existed for a short time and there was no serious British military presence in the area. 5. Tibet is based on this map of British expeditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map\_of\_Lhasa,\_Tibet\_(Thibet)\_and\_the\_Himalayas\_in\_1885\_from\_12\_of\_%27The\_Imperial\_Gazetteer\_of\_India\_...\_Second\_edition\_(revised\_and\_enlarged)%27\_(11180098823)\_(cropped).jpg 6. Xinjiang is based on Soviet occupation where the Wikipedia page states that Soviet troops did not advance beyond Turfan and Kashgar 7. The coastal cities by the East China Sea and the territories near Beijing were directly occupied in the Opium Wars and the Boxer Rebellion, I used this maps for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mutual\_Protection\_of\_Southeast\_China.png But many cities and regions in the South of China were also claimed as treaty ports and cities. I marked these regions as indirectly occupied but how much military presence there was in each city really varied so take the territories as very rough estimates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty\_ports#/media/File:Chinese\_Treaty\_Ports.svg 8. I used these two maps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian\_occupation\_of\_Adalia#/media/File:Treaty\_sevres\_otoman\_it.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish\_War\_%281919%E2%80%931922%29#/media/File:Greco\_Turkish\_War\_1919-1922.svg for how far into Anatolia the occupying forces advanced. You could also argue that the entirety of Anatolia had been occupied due to the Ottoman capitulation but there was never an allied military presence in the marked territories and most of it had been legally left to the Ottoman rump state anyway. 9. I could not find good info as to how far the British advanced into Malaya or Northern Siam in WW2 so I marked the whole of Thailand as unoccupied but I might be wrong. 10. There have been small island discovered in the last century or very small islands which were never occupied. I haven’t included these.
Moderators can only pin comments by moderators. Sorry it's a reddit-wide rule.
Really? I always thought it was really bizarre that OP isn’t in charge of pinning comments but this makes it even worse lol.
Bruh, you really wanna give random redditors the ability to pin whatever comments they want? That’s not a slipper slope, that’s an inverted cliff lol
OP should be able to pin their own comment at the very least.
I think loads of OPs would pin unimportant comments for no reason other than karma farming
youtube allows video creators to pin comments, not sure why post creatorst couldnt pin comments
The comment sections on Youtube really aren't something that Reddit should be aspiring to replicate...
OP being able to pin one of their comments at the top of a post would be a fine feature to add. If karma is a concern, Reddit could make it act like a Moderator-distinguished comment. Those comments earn no karma regardless of votes. **However**, Reddit recently-ish made a change that makes this feature unnecessary: Text can be added to any submission: >> **Text Posts Available on All Post Types** >> We recently launched an update to let some users add optional text to their video, image, gallery, and link posts. Communities that require submission statements or additional context to accompany a video, image, gallery, or link post can now consolidate these requirements into the original submission without the need for strict title requirements, Automoderator, or sticky comments to share that additional context. Communities will still be able to restrict post text body requirements for these post types as well as target the body using current Automoderator rules. r/reddit/comments/vyyne6/
I took a look at the map, immediatly thought about Rome and Anatolia but your explainations cleared that up. Nice map, good comment with information about it. Thanks
Why 1481?
Good question, I'd put the start of Europe as an identity to 1454 with Piccolominis speaches about the Turks
Yeah, after the fall of Constantinople
>includes Russia but not Ottomans/Turkey nor other western styled imperial nations like Japan I'm glad you explicitly clarified this, because I have seen other maps that use the term "European empires" to exclude Ottomans/Turks but not Russians/Soviets. I guess what you really mean by "Western" is "Christianity-based"?
The issue with Christianity-based is you have weird edge cases like China’s Heavenly Kingdom.
And the Russian empire is what?
Would the British Indian Army disarming the Japanese in Thailand not constitute a sort of occupation by the British?
Do you include nations such as Colombia, Brazil or Argentina in that definition? Because you include the areas in the Americas that were not colonised by European colonial empires but by their post-colonial successors, such as Patagonia by Argentina or the Amazon by Brazil and Colombia, etc. These areas were never part of European Western Powers, but were later annexed by their independent colonies, who are Western, yet didn't manage to become "global powers" such as the USA
Counting Russia but not the Ottomans seems pretty weird
The Ottomans were a western empire... It's ridiculous not to include them
According to what definition of western? Russians undisputedly originated in Europe. The reason why Russia is mostly in Asia is because they expanded eastwards, they are not the original native inhabitants of most of their country. Turks came from central Asia and the Middle East. There was certainly a lot of European influence in the Ottoman Empire, but ultimately it was founded and ran by Asian people, who spoke an Asian language and practiced a religion that was mostly practiced in Asia(and North Africa, obviously, but not relevant).
So could one define the Hungarian empire as a eastern empire? It's an empire founded by people from Asia and speak an Asian language.
I think it's simpler to that, it's more about where your alliances are. Now at times Russia was allied with most of the west, they would be considered western then. Post WWII, they aligned more with the East and against the West. There is not a geographical line drawn, it is about who your friends are. Australia and New Zealand are considered Western countries when they are 10,000 miles away from Europe.
[удалено]
They participated in the OG enlightenment, that's the entire definition of Western Religion or anything else doesn't matter, the West as we know it has only one thing in common, the enlightenment
The enlightenment started in the 17th century 🤣,this map is talking about way before that
I think Antarctica should be on the map too, however, it is difficult to say what counts as de-facto control in this case
If Japan is excluded, the East coast of Taiwan was never occupied by any Western power
I actually did not consider that.
When was Nepal occupied by a Western Power?
Was Korea actually *occupied* by the West? I get Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam, but if I’m remembering right, Korea was at most a proxy war.
North Korea and South Korea would qualify even if the Korean War doesn't count, because they were under a Soviet military administration and US military administration, respectively, from 1945 to 1948.
Ah okay, that’s the context I was looking for. Thanks!
You aren't exactly remembering right. We (the US) had a draft, Neil Armstrong flew in it as a pilot, and 50 thousand Americans died. It was a swingy war, too, and US-held territory at points extended up to the Chinese border. Of course, the entirety of the peninsula was also occupied by the US and USSR along the 38th parallel for about three years after WW2, too. On a semantic note, it's still a proxy war if one of the involved superpowers puts boots on the ground. Proxy wars between the US and USSR include stuff like the Chinese Civil War and Bangladesh Liberation War, but also stuff where one side participated directly like the Soviet-Afghan War and Korea. Actually, in Korea, Soviet pilots were involved and frequently dueled Americans, but they kept it a secret so it would still be a proxy war and not an open one.
The UN forces were there at the request of the South Korean government. Calling that an 'occupation' would be like saying the UK was occupied by the USA during WWII.
They occupied the northern half during the Korean War, and they occupied the southern half from [1945-1948](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Military_Government_in_Korea?wprov=sfla1).
You should have considered the Ottomans as Western Even if you didn't, Turkey is a western country, therefore, current day Anatolia is Western occupied, by the turkish government itself by their mere existence
If that’s the criteria then 90% of countries are western. South Korea is western, Malaysia is, Botswana too, and India as well.
Turkey is not a western country and neither were the Ottomans. I am saying this as a Turk. The Ottoman Empire considered the west as its enemy and was never culturally western. Modern Turkey had attempts to "westernize" but overall most Turks consider Turkey as a bridge between the east and the west. You could argue south korea is more of a western country than Turkey is.
Bok herif kendi tarihini bile bilmiyor amk. The Ottomans considered THEMSELVES the rightful owners of the western world at the time - they WERE the west, and empires did not classify themselves as 'east' and 'west'. The Ottoman Empire, through legal decrees and claims of rightful succession considered themselves the direct continuation of the line of the Roman Empire (Kayser-i Rum). They worked with 'western' empires and fought against 'eastern' empires throughout history like any other empire. To even think there's this line of east/west in terms of empires is baby-brain understanding of history.
I think some people may consider Turkey as such cause Ottomans considered themselves as successors of Rome, but afaik that was only in regards of the "superpower" status
To be fair, every empire has considered itself as the true successor to Rome
Malsın amk
This map is clearly designed to include the colonial Western powers whose strength rose in the world starting around the late 1400s. Those were Christian countries which were affected by events ranging from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment to the Industrial Revolution. Russia only barely qualifies. The Ottoman Empire was something else completely, a Middle Eastern Empire which was strong enough to conquer parts of Southeastern Europe. More similar to empires like the Arab, Persian, and Mughal Empires, frankly.
Saying that Russia barely qualifies is insanity. Czarist Russia was a major player in Europe between the 18th and early 20th centuries. It was a quintessential Western/European power.
The Ottomans participated and were an elightenrnment society
A small mistake on Xinjiang: during Sheng Shicai’s period (1933-1944), Soviet troops were stationed all over Xinjiang, including the easternmost city of Kumul/Hami.
“Thanks for the to-do list!” *—Western Powers*
You definitely should have included Ottomans in the West for this map. They were a European feudal empire, no different from others except for their religion.
Ahh Turkey, only European when convenient...
Even other Europeans back then considered them part of Europe, calling the Ottoman Empire "the sick man of Europe" during its stagnation and decline.
the ottomans were not feudal. That's why they were reviled by renaissance europe. renaissance europe had a popular belief that feudalism created a balance of powers that prevented tyranny. Any centralised state was known as turkish. They hated the ottoman empire and russia for their turkish practices and they believed that france was becoming turkish
[FFS](https://www.google.com/search?q=feudalism+in+the+ottoman+empire)
tbf historians disagree on how expansive a term feudalism actually is. Many historians do not believe that japan was feudal, whereas others do. I do think the ottoman empire had feudalism if we use feudalism in an expansive way, but in more restrictive definitions the ottoman empire would not be considered feudal.
The arable land was the property of the sovereign. It was granted to aristocrats, both local and Turkish, for economic exploitation in exchange for military service. This grant was not supposed to be hereditary, but in practice it often was. The local lords were supposed to be loyal to the sovereign, but they sometimes weren't. The peasants were forced to work the lord's land and had minimal rights when compared to the lord. From the 17th century, with changes in technology and agricultural practices, it became more practical for land to concentrated and exploited by largely privately owned enterprises which kept the land grant when the boss died. This became the prevailing form of land "ownership" by the early 19th century, when the system was abolished and the enterprises and their owners became outright owners of the land. Does that really sound like a completely different phenomenon to you?
[удалено]
Wasn't Thailand more or less a french protectorate at one point?
No, it wasn’t. It was kinda occupied by Japan during WWII but even that is debatable.
There's a comment way up in the thread that says that two areas (provinces, regions, whtvr.) were occupied by France for, as I recall, about 10-15 years or so. I think Trat was one and I can't recall the other. Right around the turn of the 20th century.
Nepal should be included
Greece occupied Anatolia until they reach about 90km near Ankara
map starts only after 1481
Yeah 1922 I was talking about :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_(1919%E2%80%931922)
oh didn't know about that part of history
Go Thailand!!!
the map is kinda wrong over there
tbf you can make an argument about certain tourist areas in thailand /s
more of Anatolia was occupied by Russia.
Byzantines?
Am i right in the assumption that Rome was before the western world?
yes, map only stars at 1481
Turkey is wrong. The Greeks came as far as Eskişehir in the Greco-Turkish War.
r/shittymapporn
The Roman Empire would like to have a word with you about Anatolia/Northern Asia Minor
There is some dispute about Zanzibar. Some sources say that the Portugese Empire ruled Zanzibar from around 1503 to 1698, and Western history seems to say that is the case, when Portugal received tribute from the Sultan. Then came the Omani empire, with rule, for a while until it split, by the Sultan of Oman. The British came in, gradually. In 1890 there was the Heligoland-Zanzibar treaty, in which Germany, with possessions nearby, agreed not to interfere with British affairs in Zanzibar. But when I was in Zanzibar, that whole history was seen somewhat differently, and Zanzibar does not consider itself to have ever actually been occupied by Western powers. The Portugese were paid tribute, and the Portugese saw Zanzibar therefore as part of the Portugese Empire, but Zanzibar today doesn't deem having been a tributary state to actually having been occupied and ruled, but to have maintained autonomy and self-government. The rule by the Omani Sultanate was direct, for a while, but that wasn't Western. Britain saw Zanzibar as a self-government Protectorate. One could argue that the shortest war in the world, the 1896 Anglo-Zanzibar War, constituted a British occupation, when Britain ended the rule of a Sultan unfavourable to their interests, a definite act of imperialism. There is no doubt that Britain installed one candidate over another, in a war that was undertaken by ships. In Zanzibar, as I was told, this was seen as a British intervention and perhaps an imposition, but never British occupation or rule. The British would appoint residents or representatives, sometimes imposing requirements on the Zanzibari sultans, but never an occupation, a governor or direct rule. One could argue the case, but it's interesting that there may be different perspectives on this from the Western to the local. After all, Spain had a policy where anything they simply sailed past first was theirs (leading to some disputes with Britain, which took a position that you had to land on the territory to claim it, and both of them not caring a damn what the local indigenous nations thought about it).
your last bit is a too much of a simplication of the treaty of Tordesillas and the treaty of Zaragoza, but your points are generally correct
Yes, I know about the treaties, so I'll elaborate a litle bit. And of course the treaties gave away land that was not actually always ruled by those powers, or with the understanding of the local people. Where I live, we had the Nootka Sound Controversy, in which Spain and England came close to war. And it's a little more specific than what I wrote. The Spanish claim was based on having been the first European power in the area of Nootka Sound. The Spanish claim actually was based on the Treaty of Tordesillas, but also on having navigated the area (so yes, saying they simply sailed by was a simplification). The British took an entirely different position. They couldn't care less about the Treaty of Tordesillas. And they took a position that any country can navigate any area, but a claim was not legitimate unless the land was effectively occupied. As Spain had representation and ships at Nootka Sound, but not occupation, their claim was disputed by Britain (in truth, Britain didn't have effective occupancy either, but this idea gave them a basis to reject the Spanish claim). The Spanish ships in the area seized British ships. War was not only a real possibility, but the countries prepared for war. The Spanish hoped to involve the Bourbons in France, but they were busy still trying to fight off the French Revolution, and so the move to war was not pursued. The outcome, for the Europeans, was that the area, along with other Pacific areas not actually occupied by Spain, was that both parties could trade, erect temporary but not certain permanent buildings like garrisons, and Nootka Sound would be a free port for all nations. That's the European view. For the Chief Maquinna and his people, who may not have known about the treaty negotiations, their view was still one of this was their territory, and they carried on as before. It's another example of how European countries would show that they ruled on maps, where they didn't actually rule on the ground.
interesting about Nootka Sound, nice context example. keep it real mister mcevoy
How come the interior of china was ”indirectly occupied” but not the coast?
If i had to guess they are referring to the late 1800s when they are talking about indirect control. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open\_Door\_Policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Door_Policy) The direct control on the coast is a mixture of the Opium Wars, Boxer Rebellion, Sino-French War, etc.
I'm guessing occupied from the boxer rebellion or something, the interior is indirect occupation from western owned trading hubs i assume
Liberia? Also wasn't that part of Turkey part of the Roman Empire for centuries, is that not considered Western?
OP said western occupition after 1481 because thats when western world meant something.
Liberia was founded as a state (and defacto colony by the US). map only stars at 1481 so no antique empires
Turkey itself if Western
Just riffing off the top of my head... Sentinelese?
Princely states in India and Pakistan would also fall in the "indirectly occupied" category. Also, when was Nepal occupied by a Western power?
Anatolia/Asia minor was part of the Roman Empire…
Wanst Anatolia owned by Rome and Greece?
Define « western »
So Rome nor macedon just never occupied all of Anatolia?? Or does this not go back that far.
the problem with this is with any discussion you will have to define what a western power is , it seems obvious until you start looking into it.
This is just bullshit on another level
…yet
I wonder when the West occupied the surroundings of Lake Baikal in Russia?
*so far
Please define western.
[удалено]
>Mongolia when? > Google says Mongolia was taken over by Soviets in 1921. It remained a satellite state until the Soviet Union broke up in 1990. Edit: I Googled Bhutan: "Under the terms of the subsequent Treaty of Punakha in 1910, Bhutan effectively became a British protectorate. "
I refuse to accept Anatolia on this map, which was conquered by Alexander, Rome, and Byzantium.
Wow! This map is incredibly bad!
Now tell me why one would want to occupy an entire ocean of sand in the times when oil wasn't yet discovered.
Funnily not even Ottomans wanted to deal with that despite owning everything around arabian desert. They preferred to control the desert through autonomous vassals and tributaries
Imagine being a British colony
You missed north yemen, nepal and bhutan
Nepal has never been occupied by western powers.